Gas Attack in Syria

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, it occurs to a vast majority of Americans. Even typically insane warmongers on the right like Sarah Palin are stating the very obvious: a civil war 20 000 km away is not their war, it has never been. The elite is another matter. These guys have so-called "geopolitical interests" to talk about. Also, what's the point of having lots of military toys - for which you spend half a trillion every year - if you never put them to use? Can't wait for someone to attack you - just fabricate a casus belli, that thing has been going on since the last credible threat to the US - the Soviet Union - fell apart. Yugo, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Maybe Iran. Who knows if they run out of steam at some point or not. Certainly neither China nor Russia these days are willing to directly confront the US or its allies the way the USSR could.

The last war will be a permanent one - guns of the industrialized world permanently turned outwards, to the periphery, a chain of endless hotspots and civil conflicts where greater powers flex their muscles, safe behind vast expanses of the ocean, the seas, the borders and buffer zones (Turkey lol). War will never end, one enemy will be replaced by another, just like in Afghanistan, nations will be invaded and re-invaded and re-re-invaded again, sometimes by different industrialized nations, but that won't really change much in the general picture.

I want to be wrong but something tells me I'm right. Human losses in this never-ending war game with drones, highly advanced stealth bombers and guided missiles will be minimal - among first-worlders of course - so there'll be no real incentive to stop such wars and interventions from occuring again and again. The target practice units across the endless warzone are, on the other hand, just numbers.

[Patroklos]

It's not as if it occurs to Americans that a heavy handed, forceful military intervention will inevitably kill many more children and innocents. A lot of people are still totally absorbed by the idea of the Hollywood-esque "military adventure". One of the worst legacies of the 2nd World War was how attached it left many to this idea, and how attractive it makes war look.

Its hard to see a situation where such intervention would have caused more deaths than we already have. Two and a half years in we are approaching the death toll it took ten years to reach in Iraq. Even if we ended up with the same civil war but between the current rebel factions for future control (and there is a lot more of them now than before) minus Assad we are still ahead of the game because that is probably still going to happen after the Assad death throws (if he doesn't win) anyay.

The lesson here seems to be get in or get out, because the people on the ground both rebels and government are acting on the assumption of one of the other and unfortunetly this case they are dealing with all major powers talking out of both sides of their mouth. Would many of the rebels be such if they had known they would be waiting 2 1/2 years and a ruined country later for the international community to even discuss military intervention and for it to be irrelevant at that? This remindes me of the Iraq 91 Shia uprising where we talked the talk, but didn't follow the rebels when the walked and we all know what the result of that was.

[K. A. Pital]

Patroklos, you probably have seen the example of the Afghanistan civil war producing a simply horrific outcome "minus Najibullah". I must ask the question: why is such a scenario beneficial to Syria? Afghanistan is a dysfunctional failed state, a collection of lawless zones controlled by warlords. It is not a nation-state in modern terms. Remember that it was actually occupied by the US and directly administered for a time.

Simply dropping some bombs is even less likely to produce a beneficial outcome.

[Patroklos]

Patroklos, you probably have seen the example of the Afghanistan civil war producing a simply horrific outcome "minus Najibullah". I must ask the question: why is such a scenario beneficial to Syria? Afghanistan is a dysfunctional failed state, a collection of lawless zones controlled by warlords. It is not a nation-state in modern terms. Remember that it was actually occupied by the US and directly administered for a time.

Because one civil war and a winner is better than a civil war without one that dumps you in another civil war. This is based entirely on a humanitarian metric of measure. Afghanistan is a bit of a different situation as it got tangled in a super power proxy struggle that I don't particularly agree with. I don't think there is any chance of a similar situation in Syria, Iran is not a US/USSR.

At the onset of the Syrian civil war the opposition was far more unified and far more moderate/alligned with Western influences. A victory for them there with substantial miltary support would at the very least avoided the last 2.5 years of destruction and 100K dead and also given us the best chance at getting a leadership regime we like. Even if the opposition went for each others throats after an initial intervention and we ended up with civil war anyway, do you think there is any chance of avoiding that now with all the extremists islamists in control of half the armed might of the rebel forces? If you were worried about the who was going to get control in 2011 do you think the situation for getting a benificial outcome is better now?! I certainly don't.

Simply dropping some bombs is even less likely to produce a beneficial outcome.

Not necessarily, it depends on when and where. But I agree with you that dropping bombs is not always the answer or even often the answer. My main critisism is that if you are going to do it do it, if not don't. Don't line up circumstances where we get as much destruction and death as possible by signiling to both parties that you very well may do exactly what each wants so they act as such. If Assad ends up winning in the end, would anyone say it was a bad thing had he done so after six months of fighting instead of three years?

[K. A. Pital]

It does not follow that a winner is automatically "better". I'm not sure consolidated Taliban rule over Afghanistan was preferrable to even total Somalia-like anarchy and warlordism. But yes, I see your point. I am also of the opinion that you should not attempt to take a "let them kill each other - the more the better" stance.

[Patroklos]

Oh I was not saying any winner is better as far as follow on leadership goes, just that in Syria if we are going to end up with the same dictator anyway...

[Patroklos]

It is quite entertaining watching the media and White House PR team trip over themselves to explain how today's developments are really what Obama wanted all along and were totally on purpose and his doing.

Its also interesting as it falls on the day Obama was going to make address the nation anyway. His speech writers are probably going insane right now, I wouldn't be surprised if they had to start again from scrath. I normally opt out of these things and read the summary below (or the reaction here) as these events are generally over sold but this time I may tune in to see the latest direction/story they go with.

[FaxModem1]

But you see...Obama planned it all along. At least, according to this blog.

Freak Out Nation

Sunday, September 8, 2013
President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize
Article Mirror

September 8, 2013
By Wayne Bomgaars

As the media interprets recent events as Obama’s march to war, America and the world falls for it hook, line and sinker. Say what you want about Obama but he is a very smart man. He would never ask permission he did not need from Congress to launch a strike on Syria unless he knew beyond a doubt he could get it. That is if his real intentions were to actually carry out military operations. But why on earth does it appear he wants this war?

After agonizing over this question over and over I began to realize there is only one logical explanation. He does not. Only a month ago the GOP was accusing Obama of being weak for not acting when the “red line” was crossed. There was pressure for him not only from the US but from the world as well. The reputation of the great American defender was on the line. Still it was obvious at the time Obama did not want to rush into another quagmire, bogging down the rest of his tenure as our nation’s leader. But the evidence kept rolling in. He had to do something not only for his reputation as a world leader but for the United States as well.

Cue the British Parliament to provide Obama with the perfect out. Just days after Britain’s governing body eliminated any joint action with the US to participate in a coalition to strike the Assad regime, Obama made a surprising and decisive move. Against the advice of all his advisors, he put any US participation in the hands of our do-nothing Congress with no chance they would give him the approval he needed. Not because it isn’t the right thing to do but because Obama was asking for it. The outcome is a given if you just take a step back and look at the situation rationally. And there is no way Obama is going to launch this attack once Congress says no. It would be political suicide. Bush may have gotten away with it but America is not going to let it happen again. The fallout would signal the end of any and all effectiveness the Obama administration for the remaining years of his presidency. And history would place him with the likes of war criminals like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Let me repeat this. Obama is not that stupid!

So why then does our president appear to be beating the drums of war? The simple answer is he is now regarded as a hawkish leader before the US and the world. And he does so without having to fire a shot. He appears wholeheartedly in favor of a strike and is playing the part well. The hawk stands upon his perch without lifting a talon as Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. And during this entire debacle, he even manages to make republicans come out as anti-war; something even no one thought possible only a month ago.

If this sounds like an improbable scenario I ask that you to ponder for a moment the potential outcome:

No war
Obama and America look strong and world leaders should not doubt Obama’s willingness to take action
Congress was made to do their job
Congress will take the responsibility of inaction
Republicans have to pretend they are anti-war
Americans comes out against any further wars thereby providing the beginning of the end to our perpetual war
Puts pressure on the UN to take other action
Suddenly the UN is eager to accept other harsh non-military actions against Syria

And there is even the added bonus that the GOP weakening the push to shut down the government over the debt ceiling will not proceed with the intense battle anticipated. Next week Congress returns for only nine days. Nine days to act on the Syrian War, the debt ceiling, immigration, the Voting Rights Acts and many other important issues.

Seeing they can barely rename a post office, Congress will not have the ability to once again play games with by demanding cuts and further tax cuts for corporations. It will have to accept a reasonable offer or be blamed for damage to our nation’s credit rating. Republicans are very aware they will face blame and backlash should this happen.

Tell me this isn’t the best outcome ever. And I honestly think this was Obama’s intention from the beginning. You know damn well if he didn’t do anything, Republicans would be calling him weak because of the corner he had painted himself in when he talked about the red line.

Granted, Obama made a mistake with his “red line” comment, but by acting in a calm savvy manner, he can come out looking the part of the tough guy without even taking a swing. And he smiles as Congress does for him what he wanted in the first place.

If America could just set down their pitchforks and torches for a moment, they would be able to see what brilliant strategy this is..
- See more at: http://freakoutnation.blogspot.com/2013 ... YTDnN.dpuf

[Borgholio]

While I won't say Obama is a super genius for manipulating the world using the threat of attack, why would it be a stretch to say he really could have been bluffing in order to force other nations such as Russia to propose alternatives?

[NettiWelho]

why would it be a stretch to say he really could have been bluffing in order to force other nations such as Russia to propose alternatives?

Because you generally shouldn't risk something you cannot afford to lose.

[Borgholio]

Would he lose? We all know he has the power to launch a strike anyways. He could just have done that if someone tried to call his bluff.

[Thanas]

Obama has several options, none of them appealing:

a) Do nothing. Massive loss of face, no Dictator will take him seriously anymore, the Rebels might lose and Russia will win big.
b) Strike. Best case scenario here is a defeat of Assad and the replacement by another Saudi-sponsored religious dictator. Worst case: Another Iraq.
c) Limited Strike - Obama will bomb something, claim victory and go home without his strikes having done much to alter the civil war.

None of those options help and none solve the civil war except for two, and that one is not really ideal.

[Dominus Atheos]

But you see...Obama planned it all along. At least, according to this blog.

I read something a few days ago making fun of this very idea:

Privately, Hill aides joke that everything is going exactly to President Obama’s plan. It’s just that that plan is to stay far, far away from Syria.

This is the (tongue-in-cheek) 12-dimensional chess interpretation of the Obama administration’s Syria strategy. Boxed in by red-line rhetoric and the Sunday show warriors, the Obama administration needed to somehow mobilize the opposition to war in Syria. It did that by “fumbling” the roll-out terribly.

The arguments were lengthy and unclear. The White House expressly admitted that their strikes wouldn’t save Syrian lives or topple Assad or making anything better in any way, and they were instead asking Americans to bomb Syria in order to enforce abstract international norms of warfare. It would be the first military action in American history that wasn’t meant to save lives or win a war but to slightly change the mix of arms a dictator was using to slaughter his population.

All this was helpful in creating opposition. But then Obama turned on a dime and decided to go to Congress at the last minute, making his administration look indecisive and fearful of shouldering the blame for this unpopular intervention, putting the decision in the hands of a body famous for being unable to make decisions, giving the argument for strikes more time to lose support, and giving an American public that opposes intervention in Syria more time and venues to be heard.

And then, after all that, Obama goes to Congress with an absurdly broad force authorization — so broad that it doesn’t specify when it ends, or even really limit which countries can be hit. The force authorization offended even Obama’s allies in Congress, left many questioning his motives, and has now been thrown out by the Senate. Members of Congress and their aides I’ve spoken to remain shocked that Obama chose to come to Congress and then handed them that document.

And on Tuesday, of course, Secretary of State John Kerry stepped before the Senate and, asked, to forswear ground troops, said, “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be on the table.” He later walked the comments back as “a hypothetical,” but they led the nightly news, and pushed the possibility of escalation further into the discussion.

The Obama administration’s strategy to cool the country on this war without expressly backing away from the president’s red lines has been brilliant, Hill aides say (just look at the polls showing overwhelming opposition!). If they are going to go to war, their efforts to goad Congress into writing a punitively narrow authorization of force that sharply limits any potential for escalation have worked beautifully.

Believing anything else — like this is how the administration is actually leading the United States into conflict — is too unsettling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -of-syria/

[Thanas]

https://medium.com/p/cc88e449f168

Worth a read.

[TimothyC]

The more stuff comes out, the worse the case that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons gets:

Syria: Assad not Responsible for Ghouta Gas Attack, Says Freed Hostage Pierre Piccinin
Belgian hostage held with Italian war reporter Domenico Quirico by Syrian rebels said captors denied Assad involvement

By Umberto Bacchi : Subscribe to Umberto's RSS feed | September 9, 2013 2:00 PM GMT

A Belgian writer held hostage for five months in Syria has said that his own rebel captors denied that President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the Ghouta massacre.

Pierre Piccinin said that he and fellow hostage Domenico Quirico, an Italian war reporter, heard their jailers talking about the chemical weapon attack and saying that Assad was not to blame.

Quirico confirmed to La Stampa newspaper that they had eavesdropped such a conversation through a closed door but added that he had no evidence to substantiate what he heard.

Piccinin said the captives became desperate when they heard that the US was planning to launch a punitive attack against the regime over the gas attack in the Damascus suburb.

"It wasn't the government of Bashar al-Assad that used sarin gas or any other gas in Ghouta," Piccinin told Belgian RTL radio after he was released.

"We are sure about this because we overheard a conversation between rebels. It pains me to say it because I've been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army in its rightful fight for democracy since 2012," Piccinin added.

"We were prisoners, stuck with this information and unable to report it," he said.

However, his fellow prisoner said it would be "madness" to say that he knew for sure that Assad was not culpable.

"I do not know if this is true but nothing tells me it is," he said.

Quirico said he listened to a Skype conversation between three individuals, whose names he could not confirm. One identified himself as a Free Syrian Army general.

The three contended that insurgents had used gas in Ghouta to trigger Western intervention.

"I have no evidence to confirm this theory and I do not know who these people were or if they are reliable," Quirico said.

"It is impossible for me to say if this conversation was based on real events or on rumours and hearsay. It is not my habit to hold true conversations overheard through a door."

Kidnapped in April, Piccinin and Quirico were freed by their captors and flown to Rome.

Quirico said he was treated badly. The Syrian revolution had turned into something "very dangerous" since he began covering it, he added.

Piccinin said for "ethical reasons" he would not release further details about what he had learnt while in captivity before Quirico had spoken to the Italian government and his newspaper La Stampa had made a decision on publishing the story.

Piccinin said they were taken hostage by members of the Farouq Brigade. No official details have been released on who was holding them or how they were released.

US secretary of state John Kerry gave an ultimatum to Assad to turn all his chemical weapons within the next week to avoid a strike against his regime.

According to Washington, strong and incontrovertible evidence indicated that the regime was responsible for the chemical attack in which 1,429 people died.

[Broomstick]

And, as of last night, the US Congress vote is on hold... here's hoping a non-violent deal can be worked out.

[Alyeska]

I'm liking the direction this is going. The Russian proposal is the most neutral option available. I could care less about saving face. The willingness to compromise and work with other nations is the mark of good leadership. You don't always get what you want. You could say the Russian proposal is the best of many bad options. Syria is a mess. But staying out of Syria while providing aid, and removing chemical weapons from the equation is the best choice available.

Russia wins some credibility by devising the proposal. But if the US goes with it, there will almost certainly be in unsaid Qui Pro Quo in return.

Standing on the edge and being willing to step back and take a different course is a good thing. I hope the Administration will accept the Russian proposal.

[Rogue 9]

And, as of last night, the US Congress vote is on hold... here's hoping a non-violent deal can be worked out.

Let's not kid ourselves; there is no non-violent solution. Any deal the U.S. makes with Assad will result in the continued wholesale slaughter of Syrian civilians. To be fair this would happen even if we dropped Tomahawks on his chemical weapon sites, but no way out of this is non-violent.

[Broomstick]

Yes, the civil war is going to continue and people will continue to die, however, that will be Syrian violence, not the violence of some outside nation joining in the destruction.

Realistically, even if Syria did turn over the chemical weapons for destruction there is likely to be violence during transport and destruction because I can't see convoys of such things driving through Syria on their way somewhere else not being targets for someone.

Also, given the Iraq debacle I am not entirely convinced of the veracity of all evidence so far presented. Yes, someone used chemical weapons on August 21st but it is not beyond possibility that some faction or other hand gotten their hands on government supplies and used them. Since using them works more in favor of the rebels than Syria I think it needs to be ruled out (or in). I, for one, want to see what the UN group has to say on the matter before forming a more solidified opinion.

[NettiWelho]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini ... syria.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09 ... mes-op-ed/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-1 ... tion-syria

A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013
[...]

[Rogue 9]

NPR. Audio at the link.

Rebels Were 'Eager' To See U.S. Strikes On Syria
September 12, 2013 4:00 AM

Steve Inskeep talks to General Salim Idriss, commander of the Free Syrian Army. They discuss Syrian opposition reaction to President Obama's address to the nation this week, the Russian diplomatic initiative and what assistance the general is hoping to receive from the United States.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

It's MORNING EDITION from NPR News. I'm Steve Inskeep.

RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:

And I'm Renee Montagne.

President Obama's decision to hold off on striking Syria dismayed Syria's rebels. This morning we reached General Salim Idriss, commander of the Free Syrian Army.

INSKEEP: He says that by negotiating over Syria's chemical attacks, the United States is missing the point.

GENERAL SALIM IDRISS: When we only talk about chemical weapons and putting these weapons under international control, then our citizens in Syria, they will think the international community, they don't have any kind of interest about the bloodshed, the destruction, about the eight million people who are refugees now.

INSKEEP: General Idriss spoke with us via Skype from Syria.

While some rebel groups are considered extremists, the Free Syrian Army is aligned with the United States. And though U.S. air strikes were not explicitly designed to aid them, the Free Syrian Army was eager to see them.

Were you poised to act in some way on the battlefield in coordination with U.S. strikes had they happened?

IDRISS: Yes. When Mr. - President Obama talked about the strikes, we did a meeting with the commander of the fronts. We told them to be ready to have control or to control the locations that will be targeted. We are ready, our forces are ready, our fighters are ready, and we were and still waiting for these strikes. And we hope that these strikes will be done in a short time because really the Russia initiative is just a lie and the Russian administration, especially the President Putin and Sergey Lavrov, are playing games.

They know that the regime in Damascus is a criminal regime. He is killing his own people. He's using his Scud missiles, chemical materials, the air force to destroy everything.

INSKEEP: What has happened to morale among your troops now that they know the strikes are not coming, at least not soon?

IDRISS: Yes, now it is very difficult. On the ground it is very difficult. And yesterday I had a meeting with my commanders of the five fronts and we discussed the situation after the Russian initiative. Our people are very frustrated and they think that our friends will leave us alone. And they told me yesterday we can't understand why the Russians and the Iranians are supporting the regime so clearly, and our friends are delaying and hesitating. We don't know.

I told them, let us wait. We respect the decision of the president and we know how decisions are taken in the democratic countries. Let us wait and we hope that our friends, at the end of the day, will be with us and will help us.

INSKEEP: General, what kinds of weapons, if any, have you received from the United States up to this point?

IDRISS: Yes, we received support from our American friends. And what we received really is humanitarian aid - food and the medical materials. We received bulletproof jackets. We received some types of flight(ph) vehicles and ambulances, night vision goggles, communications equipment, computers and satellite Internet equipment. Lesser materials, we didn't receive any kind of lesser materials from our American friends.

INSKEEP: Even up to today, you have received nothing, you're saying.

IDRISS: Yes. Yes. No military support, no direct military support.

INSKEEP: Because here I'm looking at the Washington Post from earlier this week, September 11, saying the CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria ending months of delay. You're telling me that if any weapons are getting to any rebels, they're not getting to you. Is that correct?

IDRISS: No. No. That is correct. We didn't receive any weapons from our American friends.

INSKEEP: Because Americans have been under the impression that the policy was to deliver weapons to the rebels at this point. Why is that not happening?

IDRISS: We were waiting and still waiting to receive weapons and ammunition. And we told our friends in the United States we hope that you will support us. We are in most need for anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missiles. They told us that it is very difficult to support us with anti-aircraft missiles. But we discussed with them the military support. They say that they will go back with these ideas to Washington and discuss that with the administration, and then we will get an answer.

We are in contact with our friends, American friends here. But till now, honestly and frankly, there is no military support.

INSKEEP: General Salim Idriss of the Free Syrian Army. General, thanks very much.

IDRISS: Thank you. Thank you very much.

So if we're to believe their commander, their eagerness for the airstrikes aside, the Syrian rebels haven't received the promised military support and arms either. I would have been more comfortable had Inskeep asked General Idriss about the involvement of al Qaeda and company in the opposition, but from the sounds of it we're doing to the Syrians what we did to the Iraqi Kurds in 1991; promising support for an uprising against a dictator and then leaving the people who counted on it hanging out to dry. And they got gassed too. As much as I don't want to go to war with Syria, I'm really, really uncomfortable with that.

[Thanas]

But that is the fault of the US. I don't think bombing someone because you fail to deliver is a good way to conduct business.

[Rogue 9]

But that is the fault of the US. I don't think bombing someone because you fail to deliver is a good way to conduct business.

I'm aware, but I'm not saying we didn't deliver weapons therefore we should bomb Syria; I'm saying that if we committed to helping the Free Syrian Army with weapons and training and they rose up and put their lives on the line believing and counting on that, then we should deliver what we promised. And if we didn't want to get involved at all in arming the rebels, we shouldn't have encouraged their rebellion by saying otherwise.

Besides which, if we do start giving antitank missiles and SAMs to (specific groups of) the rebels, we shouldn't be under any illusions about how Assad is going to take that. We're de facto parties to the war if we provide weapons and training that are then directly put to use against the Syrian regime. Now, Syria can't conventionally threaten the United States and would be insane to try, but if you're not going to put in some form of serious effort that gives your allies a good shot at actually winning, it's best to not go around randomly pissing off nation-states and then walk away whistling Dixie.

What bothers me is that at the end of the day, if the encouragement of the United States brought the rebellion to where it is, and then we don't follow through and they all die in vain because of that, then we put them there and left them flapping in the breeze and share partial responsibility for their fate, and have earned the (further) enmity of Syria, which could turn out badly at some point down the road to boot. I don't like where we are, but we're there, and as matters stand it looks like we either arm the rebels with the heavy weapons they need or this ends with the Assad regime victorious, bloody-handed, and remembering that it went through all this at the explicit encouragement of the United States. Or possibly the rebels win and come out dominated by groups affiliated with al Qaeda and hostile to the U.S. and Europe, who as it stands are better armed than the groups that have depended on the United States because their sponsors have not been shy about the RPGs, which is quite frankly a far worse result. Assad, at least, is sane.

[Thanas]

Yeah, I can't really disagree with any of that.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Good piece from The Daily Beast about regime change done right.